Percepções de stakeholders sobre técnicas de construção offsite: revisão bibliográfica sistemática

Senger, Eduardo Werneck; Santos, Adriana de Paula Lacerda; Marques, Marcos Augusto Mendes; Scheer, Sérgio

doi:10.1590/s1678-86212020000400477

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Ambient. constr. 20 (4) • Oct-Dec 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212020000400477 copiar

Percepções de stakeholders sobre técnicas de construção offsite: revisão bibliográfica sistemática

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

Nas últimas décadas, observou-se uma aceitação mais rápida das técnicas de construção offsite, apoiadas por várias correntes de pesquisa relevantes. Este estudo concentrou-se nas percepções de stakeholders, que em função do seu papel fundamental no processo decisório aliado à diversidade de suas experiências, caracterizam um campo importante de pesquisa. O objetivo deste trabalho foi reunir informações quantificáveis sobre os benefícios e barreiras da construção offsite para auxiliar no desenvolvimento e/ou aprimoramento de ferramentas e diretrizes estratégicas para o processo de tomada de decisão. Por meio de combinação entre as técnicas de Revisão Bibliográfica Sistemática e Amostragem Bola de Neve, foram selecionados 24 artigos, que totalizaram 1.625 percepções de stakeholders, 238 indicadores de barreiras e 99 indicadores de benefícios. Também foi realizada uma análise de agrupamentos para estruturar 10 grupos para benefícios e outros 10 para barreiras. Além disso, foi realizada uma análise de co-citação para identificar 7 grupos e as conexões associadas entre eles. A pesquisa resultou em um banco de dados com barreiras e benefícios da construção offsite, classificados conforme sua relevância para os stakeholders. Foram agregadas análises bibliométrica e de cocitação para auxiliar o leitor na escolha da fonte/percepção mais adequada aos seus objetivos.

Palavras-chave:
Construção Offsite; Percepções de Stakeholders; Benefícios e barreiras; Revisão bibliográfica sistemática; Cocriação

Group 1	Connector	Group 2
"Offsite Production"	AND	"Advantage"
"Offsite Fabrication"		"Driver"
"Preassembly"		"Constraint"
"Offsite Construction"		"Disadvantage"
"Offsite Manufacturing"		"Barrier"
"Prefabrication"		"Opportunities"
"Modern Methods of Construction"		"Perception"
"Industrialization"		"Critical Factors"
		"Benefit"
		"Requirements"
		"Expectation"
		"Hindrance"
		"Challenge"

Search step	Science Direct	Periódicos CAPES	Tandfonline	Scopus	Selected
1st screening - All fields	2,472	94	1,074	1,434	674
1st screening - Topics	93	-	27	460	674
2nd screening	14	8 + 4ª	8 + 2ª	13 + 8ª	43

Author / Entity	Sample citations			SCOPUS Author's profile
Author / Entity	Count	% from total	Accum. %	Documents	Times Cited	H-Index
Gibb, A.G.F.	102	6.13	6.13	114	1379	21
Pasquire, C.L.	31	1.86	7.99	65	354	10
Blismas, N.G.	30	1.80	9.79	46	413	13
Dainty, A.R.J.	27	1.62	11.41	242	3080	31
Poon, C.S.	20	1.20	12.61	275	8448	50
Goodier, C.I.	19	1.14	13.75	80	515	12
Jaillon, L.	17	1.02	14.77	9	354	7
Gann, D.	15	0.90	15.68	56	3034	22
Pan, W.	15	0.90	16.58	60	393	11

Journal Title Abbreviation	Count of papers	CiteScore 2017	Highest CiteScore Percentile	Citations 2017	Documents 2014-16	% Cited	SNIP^a	SJR^b 2017	IF^c 2017	EF/AI^d
Build Environ	1	5.22	99	5.934	1.137	90	2.534	2.169	4.539	91/72
Automat Constr	1	5.36	99	2.792	521	86	2.568	1.613	4.032	77/60
Waste Manage	1	4.94	87	6.201	1.255	88	2.059	1.456	4.723	91/74
Build Res Inf	2	2.97	89	561	189	78	1.805	1.141	3.468	60/74
J Manage Eng	1	2,79	92	812	291	74	1.696	1.233	2.282	38/40
J Constr Eng M ASCE	1	2,36	90	1.027	436	77	1.488	1.023	2.201	67/39
Construct Innovat	2	2,12	94	161	76	74	0.987	0.731
Architect Eng Des Manag	2	1.99	93	151	76	62	1.438	0.727
Eng Construct Architect Manag	2	1.9	92	226	119	66	1.143	0.653	1.613
Construct Manag Econ	5	1.66	74	378	228	57	1.025	0.816
AJCEB	1	0.96	59	81	84	49	0.625	0.379
J Architect Eng	1	0.82	96	79	96	48	0.640	0.284
Int J Construct Educ Res	2	0.68	47	48	71	39	0.906	0.407
JESTEC	1	0.57	48	307	535	33	0.654	0.193
J Eng Appl Sci	1	0.37	32	1.679	4.489	22	0.473	0.189

Paper	Interview	Case study	Workshop	Questionnaire
Blismas and Wakefield (2009) and Gibb and Isack (2003)^a	X	X	X	X
Jaillon and Poon (2009, 2010)^a	X	X		X
Lu and Liska (2008)	X	X		X
Azhar, Lukkad and Ahmad (2013)	X		X	X
Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2007, 2008)^a	X			X
Chen, Okudan and Riley (2010b)	X			X
Gibb and Isack (2001, 2003)^a	X			X
Majid et al. (2011)	X			X
Blismas, Gibb and Pasquire (2005) and Blismas et al. (2005)^a			X	X
O'Connor, O’Brien and Choi (2014)^b			X	X
Goodier and Gibb (2007)			X	X
Larsson et al. (2014)			X	X
Sadafi, Zain and Jamil (2012)				X
Rahman (2014)				X
Yunus et al. (2016)				X
Zhai, Reed and Mills (2013)				X
Nadim and Goulding (2009, 2010)^a				X
Tam et al. (2007)				X
Yunus and Yang (2012)				X

Paper	Sample size	Responses per paper	Response rate (%)	Country
Blismas and Wakefield (2009)^d				Australia
Rahman (2014)^b	600	113	18.8	China
Jaillon and Poon (2010)^a and Jaillon, Poon and Chiang (2009)^a	354	84	23.7
Zhai, Reed and Mills (2013)	298	110	36.9
Tam et al. (2007)	200	70	35.0
Sadafi, Zain and Jamil (2012)	237	54	22.8	Malaysia
Yunus et al. 2016	150	54	36.0
Yunus and Yang (2012)	300	115	38.3
Majid et al. (2011)	6,886	454	6.6
Larsson et al. (2014)	56	33	58,9	Sweden
Blismas, Gibb and Pasquire (2005) and Blismas et al. (2005)^a	289	73	25,3	UK
Rahman (2014)^b	400	47	11.8
Goodier and Gibb (2007)^c
Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2007, 2008)^a	100	36	36.0
Nadim and Goulding (2009, 2010)^a	247	56	22.7
Gibb and Isack (2001, 2003)^{a, d}
Azhar, Lukkad and Ahmad (2013)	110	25	22.7	USA
Lu and Liska (2008)	1,200	131	10.9
Chen, Okudan and Riley (2010b)	412	95	23.1
O'Connor, O’Brien and Choi (2014)^d
TOTAL	11,839	1,625	Ave. 26.8%

BENEFITS / DRIVER	Cluster 10	Category	Jaillon and Poon (2010)	*Tam et al. (2007)*	*Majid et al. (2011)*	*Yunus et al. (2016)*	Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2007, 2008)	Nadim and Goulding (2009)	Nadim and Goulding (2010)	Lu and Liska (2008)	Mean	Count
Reduction cost for material disposal	1	CO1				4.41					4.41	1
Reduction cost for site clearing	1	CO2				4.39					4.39	1
Cost certainty	1	CO3				4.26	4.40				4.33	2
Reduction labor cost	1	CO4				4.15					4.15	1
Material cost minimization	1	CO5				4.11					4.11	1
Frozen design at the early design for better adoption of prefab.	1	DE1		4.46							4.46	1
Higher design quality	1	DE2				4.19					4.19	1
Reducing H&S risks	1	HS1					4.45				4.45	1
Cleaner environment	1	HS10			4.10						4.10	1
Less disturbance to public	1	HS11				4.09					4.09	1
Improved H&S	1	HS12	4.00								4.00	1
Easier safety management	1	HS2				4.44					4.44	1
Safe installation for IBS components	1	HS3				4.44					4.44	1
Clean and organized site layout	1	HS4				4.37					4.37	1
Dust reduction on site	1	HS5				4.24					4.24	1
Higher safety for workers during operations	1	HS6				4.22					4.22	1
Good environment and comfortable	1	HS7				4.20					4.20	1
Healthy working environment	1	HS8				4.20					4.20	1
Improve workers' quality lifestyle	1	HS9				4.11					4.11	1
Revisions to building regulations	1	OT1					4.25				4.25	1
As part of company strategy	1	OT2					4.10				4.10	1
Acceptance of IBS implementation	1	OT3				4.09					4.09	1
Buildability	1	PR1				4.44					4.44	1
Effective plant management	1	PR2				4.41					4.41	1
Effective site layout improve productivity	1	PR3				4.20					4.20	1
Restricted site specifics	1	PR4				-	4.15				4.15	1
Reduce components and material damages	1	PR5				4.11					4.11	1
Ease activities and smooth process	1	PR6				4.07					4.07	1
Minimum on-site space usage	1	PR7				4.06					4.06	1
Higher durability	1	QL1				4.21					4.21	1
Aesthetic issues on the building	1	QL2		4.19							4.19	1
Improved quality control	1	QL3	4.04	4.55	3.97						4.18	3
Integrity on the building design and construction	1	QL4		4.17							4.17	1
Higher product quality	1	QL5				4.28	4.65	4.22	4.20	3.37	4.14	5
Higher quality for joint and installation	1	QL7				4.07					4.07	1
Addressing skills shortages	1	SK1					4.45				4.45	1
Reduce the dependency on unskilled foreign labor	1	SK2				4.33					4.33	1
Skills improvement	1	SK3				4.13					4.13	1
Skilled workers for IBS installation	1	SK4				4.04					4.04	1
Reduction in environmental pollution	1	ST1				4.35					4.35	1
Reduction of construction waste	1	ST2	4.05		4.15	4.32		4.08			4.15	4
Material conservation	1	ST3				4.13					4.13	1
Reuse components and materials	1	ST4				4.09					4.09	1
Maximizing environmental performance throughout the lifecycle	1	ST5					4.00				4.00	1
Minimizing on-site duration	1	T1					4.60				4.60	1
OSP used to reduce time	1	T2							4.45		4.45	1
Time certainty	1	T3				4.19	4.50				4.35	2
Reduction of construction time	1	T4	3.75	4.25	3.94	4.46					4.10	4
OSP added value: meeting deadline	1	T5						4.06			4.06	1
Faster delivery to construction site	1	T6				4.02					4.02	1

BARRIERS / CONSTRAINTS	Cluster 10	Category	Zhai, Reed and Mills (2013)	*Tam et al. (2007)*	Sadafi, Zain and Jamil (2012)	*Larsson et al.* (2014)**	Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2007, 2008)	Azhar, Lukkad and Ahmad (2013)	Mean	Count
Conservative industry culture	7	CA1				4.25			4.25	1
Owner’s wrong conception	7	CA2						4.24	4.24	1
Preference of conventional type of construction method	2	CA3		4.10					4.10	1
Risk averse culture	2	CA4					4.05		4.05	1
Attitudinal barriers due to historical failures	2	CA5					4.05		4.05	1
STA norms and rules	2	LG3				4.05			4.05	1
Strong focus on lowest bid price	7	PC1				4.25			4.25	1
Design-bid-build contracts	7	PC2				4.25			4.25	1
Restricted site layout or space	7	PR2						4.38	4.38	1
Time consuming	2	PR3		4.15					4.15	1
Site constraints and logistics	2	PR4					4.10		4.10	1
Specific demands for the site logistics for prefinished elements protection	2	PR5	4.03						4.03	1
Leakage problems	1	PR6		3.95					3.95	1
Non-availability of prefabrication unit	7	SC1						4.33	4.33	1
Project team with no previous experience	7	SK1						4.22	4.22	1
Lack of research information	7	SK2		4.22					4.22	1
Insufficient education among designers and clients about building materials and their installation systems	2	SK3			4.14				4.14	1
Skills shortages	2	SK4					4.00		4.00	1

Associação Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído - ANTAC Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 93, 3º andar, 90035-190 Porto Alegre/RS Brasil, Tel.: (55 51) 3308-4084, Fax: (55 51) 3308-4054 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: ambienteconstruido@ufrgs.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Eduardo Werneck Senger - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Construção | Universidade Federal do Paraná | Av. Coronel Rua Francisco H. dos Santos, 100 | Curitiba - PR - Brasil | CEP 81531-980 | Tel.: (41) 3361-3445 | E-mail: eduardowsenger@hotmail.com